A big evolution theory is NOT backed up?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 28, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

And that fact is reported in a science journal? It’s amazing that a story like this would appear at a science pr site:

The idea of fast-track evolution during speciation has been controversial. Critics of the theory of punctuated equilibrium found it difficult to believe that the evolutionary processes leading to new species should be markedly different from the processes that cause already existing species to change.
“Species are continuously evolving and our results support the hypothesis that evolution does not “behave” differently when new species emerge,” says Voje.
Bjarne Røsjø, University of Oslo, “The Most Popular Textbook Example of Punctuated Evolution Has Been Debunked by Researchers” at SciTech Daily

Paper. (open access)

Just the title. Punk Eek was supposed to be the final smack in the face to Darwin doubters. As if the science pr site’s purpose is not just to defend Darwinism.Could we someday have a discussion of the various ways evolution happens?

Comments

BobRyan: “Is there any other plausible theory as to origin of life without ID?” You my want to ask Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak. They both are about to show how life could have appeared by natural means. The real question is whether they will split the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize peacefully? Dr Swamidass -the undisputed leader in peaceful science- could help to ensure that those two distinguished scientists don’t fight for the prize, but share it as two beloved colleagues. :)jawa_{June 30, 2020
June
06
Jun
30
30
2020
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Without intelligence far beyond human understanding, there can be no life, since you cannot get something from nothing. Is there any other plausible theory as to origin of life without ID? Either life was created by God, for lack of a better word, or it created itself from nothing.BobRyan_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Was the evolution that led to dogs and cats gradual or punctuated? What about the evolution that led to the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes?jawa_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

We would like to highlight some limitations to our approach, which are shared by most of the original work on Metrarabdotos. First, our comparisons of evolutionary dynamics during anagenesis and cladogenesis are based on ancestor-descendant relationships as defined in the phylogenetic hypothesis from the original work on Metrarabdotos (Cheetham 1986). Analyzing the evolutionary dynamics of the same traits that were used to build the phylogenetic hypothesis is problematic because of circularity issues; analyzing and comparing evolutionary changes in the same traits that were used to delimit species may create spurious relationships regarding the amount of evolution happening at cladogenesis and during anagenesis. If species are defined on the basis of a set of traits, it is not surprising if those exact traits on average change faster during cladogenesis than during anagenesis. A better approach would have been to establish a phylogenetic hypothesis of Metrarabdotos based on molecular sequence and/or morphological data that were not directly used in the study of rates of morphological evolution. Since there are no independent data available to create a phylogeny, however, we chose to take the original phylogenetic hypothesis at face value.

Methods for calculating rates of morphological evolution of nominal and ordinal traits have been developed (e.g., Pagel 1994; Lewis 2001; Pagel and Maede 2006; Lloyd 2016), but how such rates can be compared in a sensible way to rates of evolution of continuous traits is far from clear.
huh?jawa_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Does this paper answer the Cambrian Explosion questions?jawa_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

“But our new results show nothing else than a gradual evolution of the bryozoan species both before, during and after the formation of new species,” emphasizes Voje. What new species was formed in this case?jawa_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Latemarch: "there is still no agreed to definition of species." Bob O'H: "On the contrary, Latemarch. There are over 20 agreed to definition(s) of species.“
:) Apparently the disagreement between the researchers themselves as to exactly what the definition of a species is suppose to be does not constitute disagreement in Bob's opinion. Contrary to Bob's claim for 'agreement', the fact of the matter is that, "The most important concept in all of biology (species) is a complete mystery"
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place! Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is when they see it. People never confuse a dog, with a cat, with a rodent, with a squirrel, or with a etc.. etc.. etc..
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Darwinists, besides being unable to define exactly what the term species actually means, also have no evidence for the ‘blending together of characteristics’, as would be, and is, predicted under the assumption of ‘continual gradual transformations of ‘species’ into new ‘species’ (whatever the term ‘species’ is even suppose to mean for a Darwinist) As Stephen Meyer explained, “the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.”
“Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.” Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70) “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.” Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)
Here is an interesting quote from a researcher who, during working for his PhD thesis, was ‘surprised’ to find ‘Distinct kinds’ instead of a ‘blending together of characteristics as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions. He even states “this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. ”
“For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.” Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14
In other words, 'species' do exist as 'distinct kinds'. Distinct kinds that, contrary to what Darwin himself thought, can be readily differentiated from each other and which do not 'blend into' one another.bornagain77_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

By the way I know of nothing that isn’t consistent with any form of evolutionary thinking I think that is said on every one of the studies that says hey this is inconsistent with evolutionary thinking and then we have a commentator say this is very consistent with evolutionary thinking I’m just saying there’s a pattern hereAaronS1978_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

“On the contrary, Latemarch. There are over 20 agreed to definition of species.“ WHAT!? only 20! Lol :pAaronS1978_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

A recent study pointed that in the oceans, variability has been almost non existing for millions of years, that there were these times of variability and then has stopped. It is not even 3 months long ago when it was published.BrunoAr_{June 29, 2020
June
06
Jun
29
29
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

On the contrary, Latemarch. There are over 20 agreed to definition of species.Bob O'H_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

All this Sturm und Drang about 'species' when there is still no agreed to definition of species.Latemarch_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Here's a take on synthesizing Darwinism with ID to explain how Punky-E might work in the fossil record: http://thopid.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-model-for-intelligent-designevolution.html Comments welcomed.Fasteddious_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

As far as I can tell punctuated equilibrium is a question and not an answer.hnorman42_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Punctuated equilibrium was primarily a description of the fossil record: sudden appearance and stasis. Stasis is clearly natural and is subject to scientific investigation. As such, it deserves a comprehensive Theory of Conservation to better describe the mechanisms underlying the lack of gradual step-by-step evolutionary change in the history of life. Sudden appearance, on the other, may not be natural. This is particularly true when describing the sudden appearance of the higher taxa and life's major body plans. As Gould pointed out in Wonderful Life, disparity preceded diversity, contrary to the primary prediction of neo-Darwinian theory.Battman_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Did anyone say that punctuated equilibrium was inconsistent with current evolutionary thinking? Just trying to figure out who Acartia Eddie was responding to. Or if it's his Tourette's acting up.ET_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Punctuated equilibrium is consistent with current evolutionary thinking.Ed George_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

LoL! No one told Bob O'H about the many anatomical and physiological differences between chimps and humans, either.ET_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Just the title. Punk Eek was supposed to be the final smack in the face to Darwin doubters.
It was? Nobody told me.Bob O'H_{June 28, 2020
June
06
Jun
28
28
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply